I like this concept, rewarding loyalty…everyone gets a good APY but those who commit for the long term receive a better APY.
Great point…gives people control but still rewards long term holders.
1 Like
That’s not really an apples to apples comparison. Liquidating and staking are two separate things. Just because you’re using leverage (which could cause you to become liquidated), it doesn’t mean staking is inherently risky in a DAO like this.
Mathematically, if you hold onto your MEMO long enough, you will be in profit. Getting liquidated isn’t a component of staking, so it shouldn’t be considered when comparing the two.
the “locked” APY rate could calculated as a % rate above the fluctuating “non-locked” APY rate. This would allow rates to float, but long term stakers get rewarded.
For example, locking in your funds for 6 months could be:
locked APY = [“non-lock APY” + 10,000%].
As mentioned before, this could be a slider where the % premium is based on how long you lock, eg, 1-year lock APY would be 20,000% above non-lock apy, as compared to 10,000% above.
Alternatively, you could have the locking formula be something like:
“locked APY” = [“non-lock APY” + (“non-lock APY” x 10%)].
Again, this could be a sliding scale where the 10% in this example is the parameter that changes based on lock time.
This second model would also take care of a potential edge case problem that could arise in the previous example where “non-lock APY” starts to get low, say, 1,000%. With the first model the “lock APY” would be over 11,000% (1,000% + 10,000%), which is 11x the non-lock apy. This difference in APYs would massively dilute and discourage investment from people not willing to lock.
I dislike the idea of higher apy’s under a certain condition.
It sounds like social credit score, versus a system which is open and egalitarian.
Besides that, there are abra and third party options to achieve higher apy’s by using ur memo’s as collateral.
I’m not against a higher APY if you stake longer, but I think it’s a nightmare to code. Again, when does the staking period begin? Does it go from the initial investment or from the last deposit? What would stop somebody from having $1 staked full time and then just bring in the bulk of their funds in right before a rebase like they do now? If it’s based on the last dollar amount added, we’d be punishing people that were using DCA or adding more when they could.
My vote would be to keep the system the same and stop worrying about what others are doing with their money. There are a lot of proactive things we could be doing with the treasury that doesn’t punish anyone, but instead it rewards people for helping to build the community.
3 Likes
I am not entirely sure I agree, but I see the position. For me, understanding the economics behind how the APY is possible is incentive enough for me to not un-stake my TIME and continue buying more in price dips. But perhaps not everyone feels the same.
Price volatility is something everyone needs to manage within their own risk tolerance, and if you are able to pick your times with technical analysis I don’t see that it is a problem to say, un-stake part of your balance when the price is high to buy more on the way down and re-stake it. However, locking up to receive a higher APY as an incentive could provide reason to not do this.
Open to the idea, but something I would really like to understand more to see how the portion of excess time is distributed to stakeholders in proportion to how long they’ve locked up their TIME.
I am all about letting the free market work, but if this were to become a thing, I do not realistically see how it could be done for longer than 5 days, which would make it similar to minting. So if you wanna lock up your funds for a higher APY, why not by minting what the protocol wants minted?
I could see a more realistic feature with a longer locking period being a mint optimizer. I don’t see how it could offer any sort of fixed APY but it would most likely be higher than staking.
1 Like
I totally support this proposal. Long-term holders should be reworded.
1 Like
Let the cascading liquidations continue… it’s part of crypto. I like lower re-accumulation prices. $TIME price is direct result of fear in the market. Side note - $TIME and $OHM charts are amazing market bottom/top indicators.
1 Like
APY?? Why not give revenue to the one who lock? That would be more entriguing because you can lock time but have a periodical earning that you can use to reinvest
As @Daniele said, Wonderland is the investment fund of the #FrogNation ecosystem. We’ll see what Dani and Sifu do with the 800+ hundred million we have in Treasury, it could be the best investment fund ever!!!
I think this high APY is a phase and I’m not sure it will last more than 6 months, so it doesn’t make sense to me to create a block time reward.
Let’s not forget that Wonderland is a unique cryptocurrency project as it is using a treasure to back the value of each token, let’s Sifu and Dani to grow this treasure and maybe we can retire if we can accumulate enough time in this phase of the project.
HUGE fan of this proposal! On a sidenote, this would decrease the amount of liquidations due to the added stability and allow for more efficient leveraging. Would greatly benefit the price of $TIME.
Love this idea and I an a strong supporter of this. How can this moved to the next level so that we can put this for vote?
To Summarize this proposal:
Let us have another staking option that is of a longer duration and with APY higher than the shorter duration staking. All the other mechanics remain the same like rebase every 8 hrs and stuff like that.
the APY for the longer duration staking could be a factor multiplied to the shorter duration staking APY. Having a fixed APY may not be a feasible option. Just like the 5 day staking rewards fluctuate based on the number of staked tokens, a simalar calculation for the longer duration staking as well.
My question is, why is this required ?
You already can “voluntarily lock up” your MEMO, by not unstaking. The longer you “lock it”, the higher the APY. That’s how APY works. If you unstake or cash out rebases, your APY goes down.
This is essentially simply adding up a mecanism to lock people for no real reason.
High APYs is not and was never meant to last. If high APYs is what people are after, I’m afraid this may not be the project for them.
2 Likes
You’d be surprised to see how much DOT got locked up on the last several rounds of Polkdot’s Parachain auctions.
Forcing a high APY for the long term staking is putting a huge strain on treasury to be profitable in order to cover for that huge APY. Treasury management is a very important aspect in the whole ecosystem and even if we all trust Sifu, he might crack under all that pressure. When things don’t go right, people are starting the blame game, which might snowball in god knows what.
I would like to see higher rewards for those who stake long term and trust the project (unlike scalpers), but it needs to be done in the right way, without forcing anything.
1 Like